(1) Field of the Invention
The invention relates to computer gaming. More specifically, the invention relates to the collection of metrics reflecting a player's abilities in regard to key gaming attributes, the assemblage of these metrics into a player profile which is available as an output of a game session, and the use of player profiles as an influencing mechanism in future game sessions.
(2) Related Art
Most computer game behavior can be viewed conceptually as a series of vectors. Each game vector represents one of a number of possible ways the game could function at that particular point in the game. From the software developer's perspective game behavior can be viewed as the path that the code will take at that point (ex. jump to a particular sub-routine vs. not jump, or setting a variable to one of many possible values). From the player's perspective game behavior can be viewed as the environmental and situational context the game presents at a given point in the game. In this sense game behavior embodies the level of challenge presented by the environment and a player's virual opponents.
All games possess characteristics which correlate to specific skills that are particularly important for a player to possess for success in the game. Such characteristics will vary from game to game. As an example, in a tank warfare game, possible important characteristics might be reaction time, accuracy (at different ranges), and resource (e.g., ammo) conservation.
FIG. 1 is a conceptual model of prior art game behavior. Each vector 2 in the series that models game behavior has a number of contributing components, including underlying constraints 5, random factors 6, and player interaction 7. Underlying constraints 5 are explicitly or implicitly fixed by the construction of the game program and user configuration. For example, the player may be able to configure the game to provide low, medium, or high levels of challenge. The underlying constraints 5 could also include the game's ability to present a greater or lesser challenge as the player proceeds through various levels of the game or in response to the players success at the game independent of, or in conjunction with explicit user configuration.
Random factors 6 are elements solely based on randomness which contribute to game behavior by impacting the game's interaction with a player. Random factors 6 are explicitly and will cause the me to behave differently during different ins ons of the game, independent of other factor Random factors 6 determine the relative importance of each of the important characteristics during any particular insintation of the game.
Player interaction 7 are inputs received during game play from the player which effect game behavior.
Underlying constraints 5 typically mandate a staring point from which the first vector in the series begins. From the initial vector, the tail 4 of each successive vector 2 in a series is the head 3 of the preceding vector 2. The head 3 of each vector can be thought of as an inflection point 8. At each inflection point 8, more than one possible vector 2 may result. The composite of the underlying constraints 5, player interaction 7, and random factors 6 dictate the direction and magnitude of each subsequent vector 2.
Underlying constants 5, random factors, 6 and player interaction 7 are all elements that exert influence upon the direction of the next vector 2 at each inflection point 8. As a simple example, in a labyrinth type game, a player may encounter a T-intersection which allows the player to proceed to the right or left The encounter with the T-intersection could be solely based on underlying constraints (upon reaching that point in the game the T-intersection will invariably be there). The encounter with the T-intersection could be solely based on random factors (sometimes the T-intersection will be there, and sometimes it won't be, based on a purely random software function). The encounter with the T-intersection could be solely based on player interaction (The T-intersection will be there if the player successfully completed a prior challenge in a given amount of time). The encounter with the T-intersection could be based on a combination of two or three of the elements (Upon reaching that point in the game the T-intersection will invariably be there, but at random times there will be a helpful game object made available at the intersection, if the player successfully completed a prior challenge in a given amount of time).
With this model in mind, computer gaming typically occurs in one of two modes: 1) player vs. computer, and 2) player vs. player(s). Many players regard player vs. player(s) or head-to-head competition as more fun and more interesting. In the player vs. player(s) mode, the player interaction component of each vector has multiple constituents: one for the first player and one for each additional player. This results in a more pleasurable gaming experience as it provides the players with a personal interaction element not available when competing against the computer. The desirability of a personal interaction element is based on the psychological principles of identity and ego. In general it is a better gaming experience if participants play the game together, instead of just playing a synchronously and comparing scores.
However there are several factors that can make head-to-head gaming difficult and can detract from the experience. Sufficient communication bandwidth to provide head-to-head game players with real-time response may not always be available due to excessive bandwidth requirements for a particular game, or due to a Communication Service Provider's inability to provide even a modest amount of bandwidth at any particular time. Personal scheduling constraints often prevent two or more players from competing in a head-to-head manner. Additionally, it is often difficult to find players who are sufficiently evenly matched for the game to be of peal enjoyment for all players. Moreover, large scale head-to-head tournaments are very difficult to orchestrate because of the logistics required to coordinate such a tournament. Thus, while playing against the computer is generally inferior to head-to-head gaming, it does allow a player to play when the above-mentioned factors prevent or diminish head-to-head competition.
When playing solo against the computer, many games permit the user to specify a level of their opponent such as 1) beginner, 2) intermediate, or 3) advanced which may provide for a better match than head-to-head competition between two poorly matched players. Additionally, some games, particularly, chess, have been developed where the game actually learns from its mistakes and becomes better and better through subsequent matches. Even so, playing the computer may fail to provide as robust a gaming experience with the personal interactive element that many players desire.
In view of the foregoing, it would be desirable to be able to enhance the solo gaming experience with the same personal interaction elements provided by head-to-head gaming when head-to-head competition is difficult or not possible. It would also be desirable if a system for accessing the skills of other players towards the end of determining potential suitable gaming partners was available. It would also be desirable if a meaningful handicapping mechanism which leveled the advantages one player may have over another player could be applied to head-to-head games. It would also be desirable to provide a system which would provide the foundation for large scale tournaments whose outcomes were dependent upon permutations of actual skills against random game instantiations but did not impose the logistical constraints of a head-to-head tournament.